Facilities that keep large amounts of hazardous substances near navigable waters will have until June 1, 2030, to submit plans for responding to a worst-case spill, three years later than the original deadline, under a final rule from the Environmental Protection Agency that is scheduled to appear in Tuesday's Federal Register. The rule takes effect Dec. 14.
The agency posted the rule on Oct. 8, and it was filed for public inspection the following day. Signed by Administrator Lee Zeldin, it also strips references to climate change and environmental justice from requirements first adopted in March 2024 under President Joe Biden, including the mention of climate change in the rule's definition of adverse weather.
EPA said those edits bring the program into line with Executive Order 14148, which President Trump signed on Jan. 20, 2025, and which revoked Biden-era orders on climate change and environmental justice, among others. The agency added that a heavy emphasis on climate-related hazards could lead to uneven decisions about which facilities are covered and steer planning toward "highly unlikely events, rather than foreseeable scenarios."
On the deadline itself, the rule cites "serious concerns that facilities may be unable to comply with the relevant requirements by the existing deadline." EPA wrote that it has not found models or methods able to account for the physical and chemical properties of each of the 296 covered hazardous substances, and their mixtures, as they travel over land and through water. "EPA's efforts to date confirm that the rule cannot be implemented absent a years-long effort to develop modeling and other tools necessary for compliance," the agency wrote. It said the extra time will let it work on guidance and compliance tools and decide whether the underlying requirements need revising before facilities must comply.
The plans are required of onshore facilities, other than transportation operations, that could reasonably be expected to cause substantial harm to the environment if a worst-case discharge of a Clean Water Act hazardous substance reached navigable waters, adjoining shorelines or the exclusive economic zone. EPA defines a worst-case discharge as the largest foreseeable discharge in adverse weather conditions. The agency told the Daily Caller News Foundation that its 2024 estimate put the number of covered sites at nearly 5,400 industrial and commercial facilities, with sewage treatment plants the largest group. The rule's own table of potentially affected industries runs to dozens of sectors, among them farms, utilities, chemical makers, hospitals and gasoline stations.
EPA classified the change as a deregulatory action under Executive Order 14192. It estimated that the rule will save affected facilities, state and local entities and the federal government about $26 million a year at a 7 percent discount rate, or about $18 million at 3 percent, in 2024 dollars. For regulatory accounting, it put the present value of the savings at $348 million. Because the 2024 rule assessed its benefits only qualitatively, the agency said the change has no quantifiable effect on them.
The March proposal drew 30 comments: 18 in favor, 11 against and one asking for more information. Industry groups, a utility and a local government generally supported the extension, pointing to the rule's complexity, the cost of compliance, the absence of EPA tools and guidance and the agency's broader review of the rule. Several wanted five years or more. EPA said a delay that long was unnecessary and could hold up the program, while anything shorter than three years would leave too little time to build compliance tools.
Opposition came from individual citizens, two environmental and health groups and a Tribal community. They argued that a discharge could damage the environment in the meantime, that implementation was overdue and that the agency should put a number on the benefits lost to a delay. Some said EPA should already have built the tools it needs and that a 12-month delay would be enough. Many also objected to the language changes, calling them arbitrary and unsupported by evidence and saying they would weaken protections for groups facing disproportionate impacts. EPA disagreed on both counts.
The American Chemistry Council, which represents chemical manufacturers, told the foundation that the final rule is "a positive step forward" given the implementation and compliance concerns and the need for EPA to develop tools and guidance for regulated facilities.
Before the 2024 requirements were written, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Clean Water Action and the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform sued EPA in 2019 for failing to issue them. The first Trump administration settled that case in a March 2020 consent decree, according to the foundation's account, which cited EPA.
A broader rewrite could follow. EPA sought public input on possible changes to the 2024 requirements in an advance notice published Feb. 18, accepting comments through May 19, and its press office told the foundation that the agency expects to publish a proposed rule for public comment in 2027.